Advanced Versus Basic Life Support in the Pre‐Hospital Setting – The Controversy between the ‘Scoop and Run’ and the ‘Stay and Play’ Approach to the Care of the Injured Patient
- 1 January 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Disaster Medicine
- Vol. 2 (1-2) , 9-17
- https://doi.org/10.1080/15031430410025515
Abstract
Pre‐hospital care for trauma patients is provided by emergency medical personnel using either basic life support (BLS) or advanced life support (ALS) techniques. BLS for the seriously injured trauma patient most notably involves ‘scoop and run’ in which medical interventions are performed while en route to an appropriate hospital. These interventions are non‐invasive and include wound dressing, immobilization, fracture splinting, oxygen administration and non‐invasive cardiopulmonary resuscitation. ALS encompasses all of the previously mentioned BLS techniques in addition to minimally invasive procedures such as endotracheal intubation, intravenous access for fluid replacement and administration of medications. System protocols often dictate that ALS providers ‘stay and play’ at the scene of a serious trauma in order to carry out these more advanced procedures. The rationale for the use of on‐site ALS in trauma is that these interventions will reduce the rate of physiological and haemodynamic deterioration, thus stabilizing the patient prior to arrival at the hospital. It is expected that this will subsequently result in increased chances of survival. The paradox is that on‐site ALS increases the amount of time that is spent on the scene, and hence increases the delay to definitive in‐hospital care. The controversy regarding the pre‐hospital care of trauma patients between ALS and BLS is ongoing. Due to this unresolved controversy, as well as historical, cultural and political factors, significant variations exist in the pre‐hospital care available to trauma patients. Pre‐hospital care throughout the world is therefore inconsistent and is provided in different ways by different crews with different equipment, protocols and training. This review will focus on the controversies which occur in the urban setting with regard to the overall approach to pre‐hospital care as well as for specific pre‐hospital interventions. The discussion will consist of an evidence‐based approach to the topic of pre‐hospital care and topics discussed will be based on past and current literature.Keywords
This publication has 70 references indexed in Scilit:
- Ineffectiveness of On-Site Intravenous LinesThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 1997
- Predictive validity and internal consistency of the pre-hospital index measured on-site by physiciansAccident Analysis & Prevention, 1996
- Paramedic vs Private Transportation of Trauma PatientsArchives of Surgery, 1996
- IMPACT OF ON-SITE CARE, PREHOSPITAL TIME, AND LEVEL OF IN-HOSPITAL CARE ON SURVIVAL IN SEVERELY INJURED PATIENTSPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1993
- Zero-time Prehospital IVPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1989
- Impact of Improved Emergency Medical Services and Emergency Trauma Care on the Reduction in Mortality from TraumaPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1985
- The Impact of an Air Ambulance System on an Established Trauma CenterPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1985
- Is ALS Necessary for Pre-hospital Trauma Care?Published by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1984
- MANAGEMENT OF VENTRICULAR FIBRILLATION OUTSIDE HOSPITALThe Lancet, 1969
- A MOBILE INTENSIVE-CARE UNIT IN THE MANAGEMENT OF MYOCARDIAL INFARCTIONThe Lancet, 1967